Doc Searls Weblog

7 responses to “Running from Ron”

1. 

   L. Step

   October 14, 2007 at 10:38 am

   I agree. I do feel bad about the news media treatment of Ron Paul. Is there some fundamental reason for the neglect of this candidate? Still, the effort to “put a lid” on his internet support might result in an increase in his support, as most people, myself included, are really tired of the “beltboys” who have manipulated public opinion for the last several decades. But then again, given that 66% of the voters (and everyone, including clueless cretins are encouraged to vote) do listen to what they are told… so, Hillary it is (my prediction). Reminds me of Plato’s Cave… all sitting in the dark t.v. room being fed the shadows of images (by the beltboys). Ah well, that’s the way it is. In any case, I’ll vote for Paul just to know that even if he loses, my vote was not wasted.

   Reply
2. 

   Robert Fischer

   October 14, 2007 at 12:13 pm

   The Republicans have certainly already annointed her the winner — she was the silent additional candidate and the CNBC debate.

   Notably, only Ron Paul — of ALL the candidates — has been getting guerilla promotions: there have been “Ron Paul rEVOLution” banners* hung up over the freeways, plastered up like band posters, and generally populating all over the place. And this is in MN, where our Republicans are left of most people’s Democrats.

   *http://www.ronpaulradio.com/images/banner_img.jpg

   I’m Ron Paul fan, and I think he’s going to be the “surprise” candidate on the Republican side: he’s tapping into a huge base of disenfranchised conservatives (like yours truly), who have seen their Republican party hijacked by personally intrusive and fiscally reckless interventionists.

   Of course, that’s not the definition of the Republican party that the mainstream press — on the left *or* on the right — care to deal with. So the actively suppress him as a “wingnut” candidate.

   Reply
3. 

   mike taht

   October 14, 2007 at 12:37 pm

   I enjoy Ron Paul myself, he is the least egregious of all the republican candidates, and a highly capable speaker as well.

   But as I’ve been disaffected by both parties and the media for so long, I’m more interested in finding a solution for that problem than in the fate of any given candidate.

   I just put up some constructive solutions to the mainstream media’s problems in accuracy in my latest blog entry. Perhaps, one day, those ideas will get a little traction.

   Reply
4. 

   Danny SIlverman

   October 14, 2007 at 6:36 pm

   It seems fairly clear from the level of Digg-spam that Paul supporters are either really good at mobilizing online or really good at gaming the various online submission systems. The sheer amount of Ron Paul noise vs all other political links on Digg, works against the suggestion that he really has that much popularity. Same with the various online polls that suggest he is winning public opinion by an 85% margin — its not credible. It is impossible to make online polls of that nature the least bit statistically accurate, and it probably makes sense in general to simply not have them at all, rather than allow them to always report inaccurate results.

   Reply
5. 

   Greg

   October 15, 2007 at 9:15 am

   Not mutually exclusive, of course. Paul is being ignored and the online polls are spammed and when not, hardly representative of the broader electorate (though no less so than most polls).

   Press coverage is appalling indeed. They’ve picked the story lines they like best and which can most easily be told from the comfort of the beltway and w/out having to think up any tough new questions and by golly their stickin’ to ’em, genuine voter sentiment be damned. Say, wasn’t it about this time four years ago that the press was telling us (with Rove and the Republicans cheering from the sidelines) that Howard Dean was the Dem’s nominee?

   Reply
6. 

   John Quimby

   October 16, 2007 at 1:47 pm

   Just copying you all the email I sent to CNBC Managing Editor Allen Wastler:

   Dear Mr. Wastler,

   In your October 11th commentary, you wrote:

   “When a well-organized and committed “few” can throw the results of a
   system meant to reflect the sentiments of “the many”, I get a little
   worried. I’d take it down again.”

   Sir, you make and market a product directed at a specific target,
   i.e., those who consume news online. The fact that you’re using a
   promotional gimmick which doesn’t actually measure anything but is a
   device to make people think they’re engaged in opinion research (when
   they aren’t) is CNBC’s problem and not your targeted customers. Only
   a legitimate poll can be hacked or distorted. There was no “system”
   to reflect “the many”. You asked for a show of hands in a room full of
   Ron Paul supporters and you got exactly what you deserved.

   It COULD be that the social networking built into this medium has
   blown your broadcast based assumptions to smithereens.

   By the way, I’m an Obama man myself.

   Regards,
   –
   John Quimby

   Reply
7. 

   carmen

   January 20, 2008 at 2:52 am

   Any good cook knows when you put a lid on a hot pot it boils over.
   Imagine the coverage if any one else but Ron Paul had come in second in Nevada? Every cable news story was about everyone else in the race except Ron Paul, and no one dared mention his name. Many conservatives thought Fox was a more truthful no spin news network until the exclusion of Ron Paul from the N.H. Republican debate. It blew Fox’s cover forever in this viewers opinion, what an eye opener it was.

   Reply